ireland.com - Breaking News - Same-sex couples to get legal status

ireland.com - Breaking News - Same-sex couples to get legal status

Same-sex couples to get legal status

Plans to give legal recognition to same-sex couples have been announced.
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Brian Lenihan said last night that the heads of a Bill to legislate for civil partnerships would be ready by March and detailed legislation would proceed as quickly as possible.
But the Government has ruled out gay marriage as being in conflict with the Constitution.
The Government opposed a Labour Party Bill on civil unions on the basis that the advice of the Attorney General was that it was contrary to the explicit recognition given to the family based on marriage in the Constitution.
The Green Party, which supported the Labour Bill in spring, backed the Government. The Minister for the Environment, John Gormley, said he was pleased that for the first time the State would recognise same-sex partnerships.
The Labour Party spokesman on the Constitution and Law Reform, Brendan Howlin, described the Government rejection of his party's Bill as "a shameful abdication of responsibility on the part of the three parties in Government".
Mr Lenihan said last night that many same-sex couples wanted to be recognised within society and to create mutually enforceable rights and obligations towards each other.
But he was adamant that the mechanism proposed by the Labour Party was not the way to achieve this objective because it referred to the rights and duties of marriage as similarly applying to parties to civil unions.

Hamilton: Religious Liberty, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Coming Pressure on Legislatures to Reach An Appropriate Permissive Accommodation of Religious Entities That Discriminate Against Gay Couples

FindLaw's Writ - Hamilton: Religious Liberty, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Coming Pressure on Legislatures to Reach An Appropriate Permissive Accommodation of Religious Entities That Discriminate Against Gay Couples

Religious Liberty, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Coming Pressure on Legislatures to Reach An Appropriate Permissive Accommodation of Religious Entities That Discriminate Against Gay CouplesBy MARCI HAMILTON ----
Thursday, Nov. 01, 2007
Those opposed to same-sex marriage are losing this particular culture war. Indeed, the beginning of the end of the movement to thwart the recognition of gay marriage by the states is unintentionally documented in a recent article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, the conservative-leaning journal at Harvard Law School. In that article, Roger Severino, of the Becket Fund, argues that "same-sex marriage threatens religious liberty," which he apparently views as a negative development.
I make the last statement tongue-in-cheek, because it is well-known that the Becket Fund always takes the side of the religious entity. But I also make it quite seriously, because it is perfectly appropriate to weigh the interest in religious liberty against other social interests, such as the interest in enforcing anti-discrimination law. Sometimes, religious liberty and religious entities quite properly lose such public policy battles. Sometimes they don't, and the question is reaching the right balance.


According to Severino, religious liberty may be threatened if same-sex marriage is constitutionally or statutorily-protected as a result of the application of, for example, anti-discrimination laws to employees; fair-housing laws to landlords; and public accommodation laws to places of business. If religious entities refuse to treat same-sex couples equally with heterosexual couples, Severino contends, they may risk their tax- exempt status, risk their government-funded social-service contracts, suffer exclusion from government facilities and fora, and even suffer exclusion from the state function of licensing marriages.
Why should anyone care? Because Severino concedes, as he must, the growing certainty that sexual orientation will be the next "suspect classification" (like race, national origin and gender before it) to receive robust constitutional and statutory protection. In his words, "courts have become increasingly sympathetic to the notion of same-sex marriage as a protected right that may override other constitutionally important concerns." Thus, the conflict is inevitable.
The most important issue, though, is not whether there will be a conflict. There will. It is how state and federal legislatures will (or will not) address these challenges, through permissive religious accommodation.
Why Religious Entities Must Comply with Anti-discrimination Laws That Defy Their Views
The argument for accommodation of religious entities that insist on discriminating goes as follows: If state or federal legislatures recognize homosexuality as the basis for defining a "protected class" and, therefore, require equal treatment of gay couples, those religious entities opposed to homosexuality will find their religiously motivated conduct restrained.
For example, employees of religious entities who are fired for being part of a same-sex marriage might argue in court that they have suffered discrimination on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, sex, and/or marital status. In such an instance, if a religious organization holds as one of its tenets that gay marriage is not appropriate for its employees (or anyone else), then the application of these discrimination laws will be felt by the organization as a threat to religious liberty.
As I have discussed in previous columns such as this one, religious entities have no right under the First Amendment's Religion Clauses to avoid neutral, generally-applicable anti-discrimination laws, unless the case involves employment decisions regarding clergy (though this latter proposition is based solely on lower court cases, as the Supreme Court has never addressed the issue). Column continues below ↓

Thus, the question is not one of a right to religious freedom that courts will protect; it is one of a decision legislatures might or might not make, viewing the question as a matter of permissive accommodation of religion. And making that decision requires balancing the public interest in favor of eradicating discrimination aimed at gay couples, against the interest of others in religious liberty.
The Coming Battle in Our Legislatures Over Accommodation
Our legislatures, then, are where the battles will be waged. And they will be fought with vigor, because religious entities, especially those opposed to same-sex marriage (e.g., the Roman Catholic Church, evangelical Protestant Christians, and orthodox Jews) are frequent lobbyists. Some have been fighting to place restrictions on abortions for decades, and against gay marriage more recently, so their affiliation with legislators is significant.
Legislators are not infrequently in the position of calibrating the anti-discrimination laws to different types of employers, including religious employers. For example, Title VII only applies to employers of a certain size, and creates an exemption permitting religious entities to discriminate on the basis of religious belief, or religion in religion-related positions.
Here is where a legislature needs to be attuned to the facts: There is a wide array of religiously-denominated entities, and their functions (and therefore the type of regulation that properly suits them) are quite disparate. Let's suppose a given organization has a tie to a religious denomination; that does not finally answer the question whether the anti-discrimination law should apply to or accommodate the religious entity.
For example, the local parish Catholic Church is simply not the same entity as Catholic Charities. The former operates almost exclusively on funds derived from parishioners and the diocese, sponsors religious worship, and operates on the basis of close geographical ties, while the latter receives the vast majority (often over 80%) from state and federal funds, and provides public social services to a wide array of recipients, not defined by religion. Should an organization like Catholic Charities be required to abide by state laws protecting employees, even when those laws may be at odds with the Roman Catholic Church's beliefs? So far, New York and California courts have said, "yes" in the context of laws requiring health plans to include contraception, as I discussed in an earlier column.
In a similar vein, the religious apartment building owner who does not want to rent an apartment to same-sex couples is in a very different position from the homeowner who does not want to rent her basement to a co-habiting same-sex couple. Many may see the former's claim to accommodation as weaker than the latter's.
My point is not to draw the proper boundaries of such accommodation, but rather to simply point out that legislators are not required to treat differently-situated entities the same, even if they can be called "religious" in some sense - and indeed, it may be a mistake to do so. In addition, legislatures do not have to treat permissive accommodation as an all-or-nothing proposition. If they prefer, they can certainly decide, as Congress itself did, that permitting religious entities to discriminate on the basis of religious belief or religion is fine, while permitting discrimination on the basis of gender is not.
Suffice it to say that there is room for debate and compromise in this burgeoning legal landscape. And there is a multiplicity of affected parties, from the couples, to the religious entities, to the children of same-sex couples, to society as a whole. The lobbyists from both sides will play an active role, no doubt.
When Government Privileges Such as Tax Exemptions Are Extended, Strings Historically Have Been Able to Be Attached
The consideration legislatures should offer proposals for permissive accommodation may be different when a privilege provided by government, which always entails some government strings attached, is at stake. Here, I am thinking of the privileges Severino highlights, such as tax exemptions, funding for social services and the like, the use of government facilities and the privilege to perform a marriage not just on behalf of one's religious group, but also on behalf of the state.
There was a time, before the Bush Administration's strong support of faith-based programs, when conservative Christians were actually the loudest opponents of government funding for religious entities, because of the inevitable strings attached and their capacity to restrict liberty. That camp, however, is now split between those who remain opposed, and those who willingly partake in such privileges.
Having to recognize or abide by regulations that recognize constitutional, compelling or important state interests is a typical and legitimate government "string." If a religious entity practices its religion in contravention of the values recognized by government and the larger society, then it may lose the privilege. If so, it is deprived of just that: a privilege. It is not, however, deprived of its constitutional right to exercise its religion.
Those who treat these privileges are entitlements will disagree, but the state of the law is clear: A government privilege is not an entitlement.
In Bob Jones University v. United States, for example, the Supreme Court held that tax-exempt status could be withdrawn if a university receiving federal funds engaged in race-based discrimination, even if the discrimination was rationalized with a connection to religion. This reasoning has not been applied beyond the race context, so there is some reason to doubt that it would be extended to gender or sexual orientation or marital status. Nevertheless, the reasoning was embraced by the Court, and the precedent stands, and is likely to have at least some implications.
Once again, in the course of the gay marriage wars, legislators will now be asked to consider whether to exempt religious entities from the obligations that travel with government privileges. When this occurs, the mere invocation of a religious belief that is at odds with government policy - such as the policy embodied by laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation -- does not, and cannot by itself, determine whether there should be accommodation, or, if so, what its scope should be.
As with all public policy, the right balance will be the result of deliberative and careful weighing of all interests. On the one side is the profound American commitment to religious liberty, subject to John Stuart Mill's rule against harm. On the other, is America's emerging commitment to fair and equal treatment for same-sex couples. Let the policy-making begin.
Marci A. Hamilton is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. An archive of her columns on church/state issues - as well as other topics -- can be found on this site. Professor Hamilton's most recent work is God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press 2005), now available in paperback. Professor Hamilton's forthcoming book is entitled Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children (Cambridge University Press 2008).

Public is divided on gay marriage in NJ

Public is divided on gay marriage Politics NJ

By Matt Friedman - October 31, 2007 - 9:00am
New Jerseyans are split down the middle on the issue of gay marriage, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton Institute poll released this morning.
Fourty-eight percent of registered voters surveyed favored allowing gay couples to marry, while 45 percent opposed it. Those numbers are nearly identical to a 2006 Eagleton poll, demonstrating that the public has deeply held beliefs on the issue that are not easily changed.
Attitudes towards civil unions also remained consistent, with 65% of respondents favoring them and 30% opposing – exactly the same numbers the survey found in June, 2006.
“Usually change is news, but in this case no change in public opinion is the real news, given all that has happened in the past year,” said Eagleton polling director Tim Vercellotti. “The consistency of public opinion on these issues suggests these are deeply held beliefs that do not shift easily.”
Still, 68% of respondents did not have an opinion on whether civil unions gave gay couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples.
The poll comes a year after the New Jersey supreme court ruled that gay couples were entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals and ordered the legislature to craft a bill guaranteeing those rights.
“Activists who contend that civil unions do not provide equal legal status for same-sex couples have a long way to go in informing and persuading the public,” said Vercellotti.
Even though a very slight majority of respondents (within the margin of error) said they favored gay marriage, 47% of respondents said they would favor an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman, while 44% opposed.
The poll surveyed 856 registered voters out of a sample size of 1,002 adults, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4%.

Iowa churches protest ruling on gay marriage

Iowa churches protest ruling on gay marriage

Iowa churches protest ruling on gay marriage The Associated Press - 10/29/2007
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - About 1,200 people from local churches held a prayer rally to protest a judge's ruling overturning the state's ban on gay marriage and urged the Iowa Supreme Court to overturn the ruling.
The rally was held Sunday at the Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church, where people joined hands and sang in unison to the civil rights anthem "We Shall Overcome."
"This is more than a political battle," said the Rev. Keith A. Ratliff Sr. of the Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church. "This is a spiritual battle."
Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson ruled on Aug. 31 that the state's law that reads that marriage is only between a man and woman was unconstitutional and ordered the Polk County recorder to allow same-sex couples to marry.
The next day, Hanson stayed his ruling while the case is appealed to the state Supreme Court. Only one couple was able to marry before Hanson suspended his ruling.
A final ruling could take up to two years.
The case is expected to spur debate over whether the Legislature should begin drafting a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Republicans have renewed their call for a marriage amendment. Gov. Chet Culver and other Democrats say the state should wait for the Iowa Supreme Court to rule.
Monsignor Frank Bognanno of Christ the King Catholic Church in Des Moines said Iowa could become a haven for same-sex couples to marry if strong measures aren't' taken to oppose gay marriage.
"This is not going to be a mecca for same-sex marriages," Bognanno said.

New Jersey Civil Union Law Has Fallen Short in Its First Year, Commission Is Told - New York Times

New Jersey Civil Union Law Has Fallen Short in Its First Year, Commission Is Told - New York Times

New Jersey Civil Union Law Has Fallen Short in Its First Year, Commission Is Told
By TINA KELLEY
NUTLEY, N.J., Oct. 24 — Jodi Weiner, an electrician from Montclair, said that when she tried to get health benefits for her partner of nine years, she was told that her union’s plans did not cover civil unions. It was only when she mentioned that they had been married in Massachusetts that her partner was able to get benefits.
“The words ‘civil union’ were not good enough for Sally and me to get equality in New Jersey, but the word ‘marriage’ is,” she said at a hearing of the Civil Union Review Commission last month. “We can all talk about how the civil union law is supposed to work just like marriage. But in my case and others, it doesn’t work that way in the real world.”
In the last month dozens of couples spoke at three hearings of the commission, which was created by the State Legislature to monitor the effectiveness of civil unions. The hearings came a year after the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that gay and straight couples in New Jersey should have the same legal protections.
Three of the seven justices said gay couples should be able to marry, and four left it for the Legislature to decide. Lawmakers voted in December to allow civil unions, and since then, about 1,900 gay couples have had their relationships formally recognized by the state.
But most of those who spoke at the hearings said that civil unions had not provided the protections they had hoped for. Many of them asked the commission to call on state officials to pass a marriage equality law in New Jersey, which would make it the first to legislate such a solution. (Massachusetts allowed gay marriage in 2003 in accordance with a court decision.) Referring to last year’s Oct. 25 Supreme Court decision in Lewis v. Harris, Cindy Meneghin, a plaintiff in the suit, addressed the commission Wednesday night here in Essex County.
“It is not a happy anniversary, and it never will be, until the state of New Jersey fulfills that legal mandate and gives us the full equality of a marriage license,” she said.
Under state law, civil union couples are supposed to get the same legal rights as married couples. But Steven Goldstein, a member of the commission and chairman of Garden State Equality, a statewide gay advocacy organization, said that 364 couples had told his group they had been denied benefits that married couples get. Six couples have filed formal discrimination complaints with the state.
Even if New Jersey allowed same-sex couples to marry, companies whose benefit plans are covered by federal law would not have to extend coverage to same-sex spouses. But in Massachusetts, most of those companies have done so anyway, said Tom Barbera, a labor leader in Massachusetts for the past 30 years.
“Employers also understand that without the term ‘civil union’ or ‘domestic partner’ to hide behind, if they don’t give equal benefits to employees in same-sex marriages, these employers would have to come forth with the real excuse for discrimination,” he told the panel at its first hearing, in New Brunswick. “Employers would have to acknowledge that they are discriminating against their employees because they are lesbian or gay.”
In Vermont, which started allowing civil unions in 2000, couples are continuing to report legal problems and trouble obtaining benefits, said Beth Robinson, a lawyer there who has represented same-sex couples.
“We know in a civil union regime, the burden of inertia favors discrimination,” she said. “An employer who wants not to discriminate needs to amend itself. An employer that wants to keep on discriminating simply needs to do nothing.”
The 13-member commission, which includes representatives from the attorney general’s office, the Department of Human Services, advocacy groups and others, is expected to report the results of the hearings to Gov. Jon S. Corzine and the Legislature by the end of the year, Mr. Goldstein said.
Several people who have obtained civil unions, including a number who work for the state, said that they had had no problems getting benefits for their partners. But they called for a marriage law to erase the stigma of what they consider second-class status.
Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Trenton Democrat, said he planned to reintroduce a marriage equality law soon. He said if the Legislature does not act, the State Supreme Court may need to consider whether civil unions have created full equality in the state.
“I think there has been more and more acceptance and understanding that gay persons should be able to share the same matrimonial happiness as any other traditional couple,” Mr. Gusciora said.
Mr. Corzine, through a spokeswoman, Lilo Stainton, said on Wednesday that he would sign a marriage equality law, but would like to take up the issue in 2009, to avoid a national spotlight for the state during the presidential election next year.
Asked if he felt civil unions were working, he said through Ms. Stainton: “The answer is, yes, they’re working out in the sense that people have rights that they did not have previously and are treated equally under the law. Whether there is a sense of full recognition of their connection with their partners is a fair question — but the bigger issue with regard to civil unions or marriage rights is a federal issue.”
Assemblyman Richard A. Merkt, a Morris County Republican who said he would oppose a bill on marriage for gay couples, criticized the commission for not including anyone skeptical about civil unions. “A lot of people who favor retaining the law as it is basically feel disenfranchised by the entire process,” he said. “I consider it to be a complete waste of time.”
Few critics spoke at the hearings. One, Len Deo, told the commission here that a poll commissioned by his organization, the New Jersey Family Policy Council, showed 61 percent of state residents believe that same-sex couples have the right to live as they choose but do not have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of society.
Some straight residents testified at the hearings as well.
“When there’s discrimination against any group of people, endorsed by the government, we are all diminished,” said Lucy O’Brien of Montclair, who has three sons, one of whom is gay.

MD Support Civil Unions

Poll: Marylanders Support Civil Unions, Still Reluctant On Gay Marriageby 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: October 26, 2007 - 5:00 pm ET
(Baltimore, Maryland) A new poll shows that support among Maryland voters for civil unions has grown to almost 60 percent, but when asked about same-sex marriage a slight majority continue to be opposed.
The Washington Post poll, published Friday, found that 57 percent of voters would approve of lawmakers allowing gay and lesbian couples to form civil unions in the state.
Thirty-nine percent were opposed.
But on the subject of same-sex marriage, 44 percent said they would approve, with 51 percent opposed.
The Post poll found that opposition to same-sex marriage was strongest among older voters and people who frequently attend religious services.
Among those who rarely attend religious services, 61 percent support gay marriage and 73 percent support civil unions, the Post reported.
Among those who attend services at least weekly, only 25 percent support gay marriage and 37 percent support civil unions.
Fifty-five percent of voters under the age of 40 support same-sex marriage, and 64 percent said they would support civil unions.
But among those 65 and older, only 30 percent support gay marriage and 44 percent support civil unions.
The survey is likely to attract the attention of state lawmakers.
The issue of recognizing gay and lesbian relationships fell to the legislature last month when the Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision and upheld the state law barring gay and lesbian couples from marrying (story) but said that lawmakers could consider ways of recognizing same-sex pairs.
In two states which already have civil unions - Vermont and New Jersey - efforts are underway to amend the laws to permit same-sex marriage.
Earlier this month, Maryland House Speaker Michael Busch, a Democrat, said he was in favor of civil unions. (story)
Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller (D) has said he would fight such a bill and Republicans in both houses are touting a potential constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.
Maryland's largest LGBT civil rights organization, Equality Maryland, says that civil unions are not an option and that it will hold out for marriage legislation.
"Nearly half of Marylanders are there on the issue of marriage equality," Executive Director Dan Furmansky told 365Gay.com
"With a bit more patience and work on our part we're going to move the the populace in favor of full legal equality."
The Post poll of 1,103 Maryland adults was conducted by telephone Oct. 18 through 22 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
©365Gay.com 2007

Virginia and Michigan Join to Defend Against Vermont Civil Unions: May go to US Supreme Court

Virginia and Michigan Join to Defend Against Vermont Civil Unions: May go to US Supreme Court

Virginia and Michigan Join to Defend Against Vermont Civil Unions: May go to US Supreme Court
Case could result in pro-gay state dictating marriage laws of all other states
By Hilary White RICHMOND, Virginia, October 26, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Marriage advocates and the attorneys general of two states are joining forces to prevent an attempt to force one state to comply with the same-sex civil union laws of another. Two conflicting court cases could see the same-sex civil partnership laws of Vermont enforced in Virginia, a state that does not recognise such arrangements. A mother currently living in Virginia left the lesbian lifestyle and the relationship she was in with another woman in Vermont. Now the other woman in the relationship is attempting to use the courts to force the state of Virginia, a state with constitutional amendment defining traditional, natural marriage, to grant her “parental” visitation rights. Traditional marriage advocates are calling the case the first of its kind in the US where the laws of one state are directly pitted in a lawsuit against the same-sex partnership laws of another. Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller were formally registered under that state’s same-sex civil partnership laws in Vermont. While in the relationship, Lisa Miller gave birth to a daughter, identified in court documents as IMJ, conceived by artificial insemination. The court files dissolving the civil union named IMJ as “the biological or adoptive” child of the “civil union.” Miller has since left the relationship and the lesbian lifestyle after converting to Christianity and has moved with her daughter to Virginia, a state with no recognition whatever of same-sex unions and that has a constitutional amendment upholding the definition of natural marriage. In June 2004, the Vermont court awarded Jenkins “on a temporary basis, parent-child contact” with IMJ. The following July, after Virginia passed its Marriage Affirmation Act confirming natural marriage as the legal definition, Miller successfully petitioned the Virginia court to award her sole custody of IMJ, who is now five years old, and asked the court to declare Jenkins’ claims to parental rights to be “nugatory, void, illegal and/or unenforceable.” In response on July 19, 2004, the Vermont court declared that it continued to have jurisdiction over the case, ruling that it is “unaware of any proceeding available in a state that does not recognize a civil union” and insisted that its temporary order for Jenkins’ visitation rights be followed in Miller’s new home in Virginia. The Vermont court later held Miller in contempt for refusing to comply with the visitation ruling. In an appeal by Miller, the Vermont Supreme Court upheld the original decision and awarded Janet Jenkins parental rights over Lisa’s biological child. Miller’s ongoing case is being pursued in the Virginia Supreme Court, represented by the Liberty Counsel, a public interest advocacy group. The situation in which one state’s court has demanded that another state recognise a homosexual domestic arrangement that has no legal reality in another state, is unique, says Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law. Staver said, “One state should not be allowed to write the marriage policy of another state and export same-sex unions beyond its state borders. Regarding same-sex civil unions, what happens in Vermont must stay in Vermont.” If the Virginia Supreme Court decision clashes with the Vermont Supreme Court, the case will go directly to the United States Supreme Court. A standard tactic of the homosexual activist movement has been to urge the use of such cases to bring about changes of laws in other jurisdictions . When Canada passed its legislation creating “gay marriage”, one group recommended gay partners get “married” in Canada and then use the courts in the US to force legal recognition of the arrangement. The Liberty Counsel is arguing that Virginia has the right to define its own marriage policy, and a Vermont same-sex civil union “becomes invisible” at the border of Virginia. The Virginia attorney general’s amicus brief in the case asks the Virginia Supreme Court to rule that the same-sex civil union laws of Vermont are void in Virginia. The Virginia brief is supported by another from the attorney general of Michigan, a state that also has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.